Driving while using a cellphone is a good example of trust. The first component of trust refers to the other drivers: that they will drive according to the rules and in such a way that they will not put me at risk. The second component is about me: that I am alert enough and will respond appropriately should danger develop.
The core question around trust is: Will I, or the other, be reliable and predictable over time, every time? The core issue in trust is that if it breaks down the cost is unacceptably high and negative. The core process in judging trust is very unreliable and makes decisions difficult about whether the players, including myself, can be trusted. Research highlights 4 key factors:
- Trust is dealing with risk. “At its base [trust] is a delicate problem centred on the balance between two dynamic and often opposing desires — a desire for someone else to meet your needs and his desire to meet his own.” (David Desteno in his article “Who can you trust” HBR March 2014). This balance can sometimes be a very delicate balance and can unpredictably shift to a “no” where it was a “yes” a moment ago.
- Trust is the awareness that a person is vulnerable in the transaction. Typically, the issue regarding trust is important enough that the potential disappointment comes at a price: a significant loss, and the potential intensity of a negative experience. In order to avoid the price of disappointment some people respond with and justify a serious risk averse mind-set. On the other hand, it appears that some people repeat hasty judgments to trust; it is as if the person over-estimates the possibility of a good outcome rather than be appropriately cautious.
- Mistrust is much easier than trust. In general, people have a propensity to be convinced a lot easier and quicker about the validity of bad news than they do about the reality of good news. “We are bad news junkies.” In a relationship for example, one incident labelled mistrust could be enough to wipe out years of positive and reliable experiences. It is as if there is a constant battle to “must believe” (read: trust) in other people. Bauermeister et al summarises their findings as follows: “Bad emotions, bad parents, and bad feedback have more impact than good ones, and bad information is processed more thoroughly than good. The self is more motivated to avoid bad self-definitions than to pursue good ones. Bad impressions and bad stereotypes are quicker to form and more resistant to disconfirmation than good ones.” (“Bad News is Stronger than Good”. @ Educational Publishing Foundation. DOI: 10.1037//1089-2680.5.4.323)
- The risk of making a mistake in valuing evidence of another’s trustworthiness is very high. One reason for this risk is because the guidelines most of us use to make these predictions are flawed. Desteno claims that people’s accuracy in deciding if another can be trusted tends to be only slightly better than chance. An example of a process that leads to faulty predictions would be “fundamental attribution error”: placing too much emphasis on reputation and perceived confidence and coming to the conclusion, based on that information alone, a person must be trustworthy. Yet, the perceived confidence as well as reputation may not have anything to do with the person’s trustworthiness in a specific context. (E.g. you might trust somebody as a friend, but not as an investor of your money.)
- The risk of broken promises to oneself. When it comes to trust, there is the issue of consistency between one’s present self and future self. The popular example of “new year’s resolutions” would be a case in point. Trust is seldom a non-emotional decision, and emotions in the present are poor predictors of behaviour in the future. Not only do emotions change over time, but people readily justify the change as a way to make the change acceptable. What is a good reason now, might change over time.
Does this mean that trust needs to be earned? Does is also mean that trust needs care when judging it? Yes to all. One useful thing to bear in mind is from Schuitema: see the situation as it is, and give everything its due. A very good starting point, in my experience.
Comments
2 responses to “Trusting Trust”
Trust goes hand in hand with knowing, sharing and “sameness”. Consider the ancient communities – everyone knew everyone. Order and punishment was meted out by the elders and everyone understood the “rules”. Strangers had a simple choice – be completely assimilated within the community and thereby earning trust, or remain different and an outsider – i.e. not trusted. As the world grew smaller and migration brought interaction of all kinds of people, assimilation diminished and different groups retained their uniqueness. Differences lead to war and terror. In modern times, economics entered the fray. The only sameness is from the global progress in technology, economic requirements and trade out of greed or necessity. All superficial trends created by those smart enough to see monetary value in progress. So nowhere did trust change from within one’s own small circle of family and friends – by marriage the circle increases but trust remains restricted non the less. One has to earn a living and we all take the risk to seek and take employment and maybe the organization has a corporate structure and mission to look after its employees in order to remain successfull. Does the approach engender trust from both sides, or is it merely an economic agreement between employer and employee? How many tricks does employers create in order to give the illusion of trust? Who knows?. My point is, that trust is, as you stated, an emotional feeling and maybe it makes sense that it is limited to those closest to us – maybe it is not meant to include the job or anyone or anything out there. From a corporate point of view – an employment agreement, company policy and rules, by law, and the consistency and fairness of its application, is the closest thing to trust one can hope for. If there is to be trust in the real sense of the word, between employer and employee, there would be no need for all the legal paperwork as it exists today in the corporate world.
Very nicely put Armand. Trust is surely one complex subject, with thousands of words put to paper/computer over the years. The challenge for me has been to look at the research and figure out what can I use/ apply on a daily basis that would make me a more worthwhile and trustworthy person. The points mentioned here add to my awareness of my own bias The words ” see the situation as it is, and give everything it’s due ” is a timely reminder to trust Be open Trust that life is beautiful That what is happening is simply what is. Thanks again Armand for making this complex subject more understandable.